Improving Reading Literacy through Diagnostic Assessment-Based Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis of Three AKM Cognitive Levels among Fifth-Grade Primary School Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30605/cjpe.9.4.2026.9835Keywords:
Reading Literacy, Differentiated Instruction, Diagnostic Assessment, AKM Cognitive Levels, Primary School.Abstract
This study examined reading literacy gains following diagnostic assessment-based differentiated instruction and identified achievement patterns across three cognitive levels of Indonesia’s Minimum Competency Assessment (AKM). A pre-experimental one-group pretest–posttest design was employed with fifth-grade students at SDN 53 Sawerigading, Palopo. Twenty students completed the initial assessment, and paired analyses included 18 students with complete data. Instruments comprised two reading test forms and a diagnostic questionnaire. Analyses compared all 20 items with an 18-item scoring scope that excluded two items according to a decision recorded in the research documents. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, paired-samples t-tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for the 18-item scope, Cohen’s dz, and normalized gain. For 20 items, mean scores increased from 69.09 to 84.47, with a mean individual normalized gain of 0.498. For 18 items, scores increased from 74.13 to 82.86, with a normalized gain of 0.337. Both differences were statistically significant, and both mean normalized gains were classified as moderate. Cognitive-level analysis within the 18-item scope showed the largest improvement in evaluating and reflecting, from 50.00% to 72.69%, while two indicators involving tabular information remained unchanged. The direction of improvement was consistent, although its magnitude depended on the scoring scope. Disaggregated analysis helped identify instructional priorities. The absence of a comparison group prevents causal attribution
References
Achmad, W. K. S., Rachman, S. A., Aras, L., & Amran, M. (2024). Differentiated instruction in reading in elementary schools: A systematic review. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(3), 1997–2005. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i3.27134
Almanasreh, E., Moles, R., & Chen, T. F. (2019). Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 15(2), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066
Anggraena, Y., Ginanto, D., Felicia, N., Andiarti, A., Herutami, I., Alhapip, L., Iswoyo, S., Hartini, Y., & Mahardika, R. L. (2022). Learning and Assessment Guidelines: Early Childhood Education, Primary and Secondary Education. Education Standards, Curriculum, and Assessment Agency..
Coletta, V. P., & Steinert, J. J. (2020). Why normalized gain should continue to be used in analyzing preinstruction and postinstruction scores on concept inventories. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 010108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010108
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE.
Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., & Bosker, R. J. (2018). Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education. Educational Research Review, 24, 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
Duke, N. K., Ward, A. E., & Pearson, P. D. (2021). The science of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1993
Elleman, A. M. (2017). Examining the impact of inference instruction on the literal and inferential comprehension of skilled and less skilled readers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 761–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000180
Elleman, A. M., & Oslund, E. L. (2019). Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339
Filderman, M. J., Austin, C. R., Boucher, A. N., O’Donnell, K., & Swanson, E. A. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of reading comprehension interventions on the reading comprehension outcomes of struggling readers in third through 12th grades. Exceptional Children, 88(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211050860
Filderman, M. J., Toste, J. R., Didion, L. A., Peng, P., & Clemens, N. H. (2018). Data-based decision making in reading interventions: A synthesis and meta-analysis of the effects for struggling readers. The Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918790001
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
Gheyssens, E., Coubergs, C., Griful-Freixenet, J., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2022). Differentiated instruction: The diversity of teachers’ philosophy and praxis to adapt teaching to students’ interests, readiness and learning profiles. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(14), 1383–1400. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1812739
Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. R., & Holzapfel, J. (2018). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.194
Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Gupta, A., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J. S., van Schooten, E., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Arends, L. R. (2018). Effectiveness of reading-strategy interventions in whole classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(4), 1215–1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9445-7
Pusat Asesmen dan Pembelajaran. (2020). Minimum Competency Assessment (AKM) and Its Implications for Learning. Center for Assessment and Learning, Research and Development and Book Agency, Ministry of Education and Culture.
Puzio, K., Colby, G. T., & Algeo-Nichols, D. (2020). Differentiated literacy instruction: Boondoggle or best practice? Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 459–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933536
Pyle, N., Vasquez, A. C., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Gillam, S. L., Reutzel, D. R., Olszewski, A., Segura, H., Hartzheim, D., Laing, W., & Pyle, D. (2017). Effects of expository text structure interventions on comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(4), 469–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.179
Schäfer, T., & Schwarz, M. A. (2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813
Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366
Van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., & Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Harni Harni, Riska Riska, Harmita Sari, Masnur Masnur
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
License and Copyright Agreement
Authors who publish with CJPE agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
